]]>Albert MohlerPope Francis: TIME Person of the Year; Despite the "Francis Effect," how much has really changed? Despite the "Francis Effect," how much has really changed?
The post The Briefing 12-17-13 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.
00:18:43Homosexuality,Roman Catholicism,The Briefing,Advocate Magazine,Audio,Frank Bruni,Pope Francis,TIME Person Of The YearThe Briefing 12-11-13http://www.albertmohler.com/2013/12/11/the-briefing-12-11-13/
Wed, 11 Dec 2013 09:00:53 +0000/?p=29593The power of gesture: What we can and cannot conclude from handshake between Raúl Castro and Obama; Legalize marijuana or harm the environment and suffer global warming; No joke - Denver's new marijuana editor desperately wants to be taken seriously.

]]>Albert MohlerThe power of gesture: What we can and cannot conclude from handshake between Raúl Castro and Obama; Legalize marijuana or harm the environment and suffer global warming; No joke - Denver's new marijuana editor desperately wants to be taken seriously.
The post The Briefing 12-11-13 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.
00:19:05Environment,Ethics,Leadership,Pluralism,Politics,Roman Catholicism,The Briefing,Audio,Denver,Marijuana,Marijuana Editor,Obama,Power of Gesture,Raul CastroThe Briefing 10-07-13http://www.albertmohler.com/2013/10/07/the-briefing-10-07-13/
Mon, 07 Oct 2013 09:00:40 +0000/?p=28835Supreme Court could take on seismic cultural issues this season; Rift over abortion at Catholic School instructive for Evangelicals; Dating at 11 years-old is dangerous. Did we need an academic study to tell us?; New York begins campaign counteracting dangerous and unrealistic fashion advertising

]]>Albert MohlerTheology matters: Pope Francis says salvation can come through "obeying conscience"; Abortion celebrated in NY Times wedding announcement, and in our society; Arsenio Hall: An important part of fatherhood is going to work
The post The Briefing 09-13-13 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.
00:17:14Abortion,Atheism,Family,Parental rights,Roman Catholicism,The Briefing,Abortion,Arsenio Hall,Atheism,Audio,Faith Rein,Fatherhood,La Repubblica,Pope Francis,Udonis HaslemWho Am I to Judge? The Pope, the Press, and the Predicamenthttp://www.albertmohler.com/2013/07/30/who-am-i-to-judge-the-pope-the-press-and-the-predicament/
Tue, 30 Jul 2013 19:17:13 +0000/?p=27793Pope Francis pulled a surprise on reporters when he walked back to the press section of his Alitalia papal flight from Brazil and entered into…

]]> Pope Francis pulled a surprise on reporters when he walked back to the press section of his Alitalia papal flight from Brazil and entered into an open press conference that lasted more than an hour. The Pope gave the press what Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton offered as presidents—a casual question and answer session that was on the record.

The biggest headline from the Pope’s remarks was not what he had to say about the scandals at the Vatican Bank, but what he said about homosexuality and, in particular, homosexuals in the priesthood. The key sentence in the Pope’s remarks is this: “If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge that person?”

The papal remarks put the international press into a frenzy. Headlines across the world announced a revolution in Roman Catholic moral teaching, a changed position on homosexuality, or at least an historic “new openness” on the issue of homosexuality.

Predictably, a closer look reveals a more complicated and far less revolutionary reality. Pope Francis did not change or modify one sentence of Catholic moral teaching. The official Catechism of the Catholic Church states that homosexuality is “objectively disordered.” The Catholic Church and this Catholic Pope are not reluctant to offer a moral judgment when it comes to homosexual behaviors. The Catholic Church offers a long tradition of consistent moral judgment on the issue of homosexual acts, and the church declares them to be “objectively disordered” and sinful. That did not change.

So, what did the Pope say? In the context of his larger remarks on homosexuality and the priesthood, Francis was attempting to explain that a homosexual “lobby” within his church is entirely unacceptable. The Vatican has been reeling from a report issued under Pope Benedict XVI that identified a “gay lobby” with inordinate power and influence within the church. Francis told the reporters that he saw gay individuals as distinct from a gay lobby. “I think that when we encounter a gay person, we must make the distinction between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of a lobby, because lobbies are not good. They are bad.”

Only then did the Pope offer his most-quoted sentence: “If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge that person?”

The meaning of the Pope’s comments is essentially this: Homosexual acts, and even the homosexual “inclination,” are sinful and “objectively disordered.” Nevertheless, as the Catechism also states, homosexual persons are to be “accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” The Catechism explains that to live with a sexual inclination that is objectively disordered is “a trial.” The official Catholic moral judgment on this sexual sin is that a Catholic who struggles with homosexual inclinations is to remain chaste and celibate, looking to the Lord for help.

Within that context, Pope Francis’s remarks are not revolutionary in substance—not even close. But the Pope was clearly signaling a new mode of engagement on the issue. Benedict XVI had warned that the church should not ordain to the priesthood men who have “deep seated” homosexual inclinations. Does Francis’s new statement change that policy? Catholic officials doubt that any change is indicated. But Francis, like just about everyone else in the public eye, is trying to find a way to speak of homosexuality and homosexuals that reflects both the moral reality of homosexuality and the respect that all human beings are due.

Those who have no moral issue with homosexuality have no real problem in this situation. They just declare that homosexuality is perfectly normal and a moral non-issue. In that case, the only “sin” in view is the sin of believing that there is anything sinful about homosexuality. Thus, secular leaders and those who belong to liberal religious groups have no real problem. They can join the moral revolution and normalize homosexuality and they need not hold press conferences to explain their position.

The Pope is in a very different predicament, and so are evangelical Christians. The Pope did not signal in any way a revolution in Catholic moral teaching. The judgment on homosexuality within the Catholic tradition is consistent and very clear. At the same time, the Pope was trying to differentiate between homosexuality and persons struggling with homosexual inclinations. When the Pope spoke of a gay Catholic who “seeks the Lord” he was speaking of a gay person who is seeking to live in faithfulness to Catholic moral teaching.

In other words, the Pope was not talking about those who are involved in homosexual acts or homosexual relationships. He was seeking to speak with compassion about people made in the image of God who are struggling with faithfulness against a homosexual inclination. This explains his criticism of a “gay lobby” within his church. He acknowledged the fact that persons struggling with a homosexual inclination are in his church and in the priesthood. So long as they obey Catholic teaching and live in faithfulness, “who am I to judge that person?” he asked.

Evangelical Christians may be rightly impressed by the depth and consistency of Roman Catholic moral teachings on sexuality, but our authority is the Bible. And the Bible’s clear declaration of the sinfulness of homosexuality and the inviolate nature of marriage as a union of a man and a woman puts evangelicals in the same public predicament. We also must respect the humanity of those who struggle with homosexuality and accept them with “respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” At the same time, we must remain faithful to the clear teachings of Scripture on the nature of sin. Nothing less than the Gospel is at stake.

The Pope made a statement, the press announced a revolution, but even a day later it is clear that the predicament remains. Tim Padgett of TIME pointed to the essence of the predicament when he complained that the Pope “wasn’t exactly going out on a theological limb.” Padgett asserted, rightly enough, that the Pope’s position comes down to this: “The church may love the sinner, but it still hates the sin.”

That isn’t good enough for the new moral regime. Padgett says that the Pope still “demonizes” gays by believing and teaching that homosexual acts are sinful. No religious leader who holds to what Padgett calls the “love-the-sinner-but-hate-the-sin trope” is now to be taken seriously, he insists.

The Pope now finds himself locked in a particular predicament. We know what he wants to say, and we can hear him say it. He, in his own way, is trying to love the sinner as he hates the sin. That is now, we are told, still “demonizing.” Nothing but the moral normalization of homosexuality will do. The Pope was speaking of Catholics who endure what the Catechism calls a “trial” of faithfulness. The new moral regime decries any moral struggle as “demonization.” The Pope must go on to renounce Catholic moral teaching, or, in Padgett’s words, he should no longer be taken seriously. The Pope must lead “by reforming the doctrine that attacks gay people,” Padgett insists.

Evangelical Christians, passionate about the Gospel of Jesus Christ, faithful to the authority of the Bible, and eager to show love and respect for all those made in the image of God are in the same predicament. The global conversation about the Pope’s comments makes this very clear. Most of us have heard the same by now.

And yet, we have no choice but to be faithful to all that the Lord has commanded and taught, all that the Scripture teaches, and all that the Gospel demands.

Tim Padgett asserts that “the Pope’s remarks point up a dilemma for his and many other religious institutions today.” That, Mr. Padgett, is an understatement.

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

]]>Albert MohlerPope Francis pulled a surprise on reporters when he walked back to the press section of his Alitalia papal flight from Brazil and entered into…
The post Who Am I to Judge? The Pope, the Press, and the Predicament appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.
Blog,Homosexuality,Roman Catholicism,Sexual Revolution,Social Media & Internet,Topics,Trends,Biblical Authority,doctrine,Evangelical Christian,gay lobby,Homosexual Priesthood,Homosexuality,Homosexuals,Pope Francis,Roman Catholic Church,Roman CatholicismJohn F. Kennedy in Houston, Fifty Years Laterhttp://www.albertmohler.com/2010/09/16/john-f-kennedy-in-houston-fifty-years-later/
Thu, 16 Sep 2010 07:03:21 +0000http://www.albertmohler.com/?p=18334On September 12, 1960, Sen. John F. Kennedy, the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States, went to Texas and addressed the Greater…

]]>On September 12, 1960, Sen. John F. Kennedy, the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States, went to Texas and addressed the Greater Houston Ministerial Alliance. The background to Kennedy’s speech was ardent opposition to his Catholicism and accusations that, if elected, he would be controlled by Catholic authorities. Against the advice of many of his own senior staff, Kennedy decided to face the issue head-on, and to do so in a context that was anything but friendly.

Kennedy’s speech is one of the most memorable of his political career, and it may have been essential to his narrow victory over Vice President Richard M. Nixon just a few weeks later. And yet, what strikes us now is that this speech actually set the stage for a very unfortunate turn in national politics.

In essence, Senator Kennedy argued that his Roman Catholic faith would not be a consequential matter in his political life. He stated:

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured — perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again — not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.

Note his assertion that his religious convictions “should be important only to me,” and thus of no public consequence. In the most famous line of the speech, he said: “I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic.” In his book, The Ordeal of Civility, John Murray Cuddihy points to that language of “happens to be” as the language of avoiding or denying significance to beliefs.

Looking back, the Houston speech was probably a political necessity for Kennedy. A careful reading of the text will reveal much to admire, as well as many areas of concern. But, in the end, the significance of this speech lies in its role as the paradigm for so many that would follow, in which politicians and public figures would insist that their religious convictions and beliefs have no public consequence.

We must expect more than that. What we need is for politicians and candidates to tell us what they believe, and how this will be translated into a governing philosophy and moral/political decision-making. “Happens to be” is just not enough.

The transcript of John F. Kennedy’s address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Alliance is found here, along with a fascinating video excerpt of his address.

]]>Albert MohlerOn September 12, 1960, Sen. John F. Kennedy, the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States, went to Texas and addressed the Greater…
The post John F. Kennedy in Houston, Fifty Years Later appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.
Marked Urgent,Politics,Roman Catholicism,United States,‘Prettifying’ Darwin — A Timely Look at a Losing Strategyhttp://www.albertmohler.com/2010/08/27/prettifying-darwin-a-timely-look-at-a-losing-strategy/
Fri, 27 Aug 2010 07:37:52 +0000http://www.albertmohler.com/?p=18079Accommodations to evolutionary theory never end. There will always be "unfinished business" that will demand further theological concessions.

]]>The American literary critic Frederick Crews once spoke of defenders of evolutionary theory who attempt to make Darwinism appear more congenial to the Christian faith than it truly is. These defenders, Crews wrote, present a vision of Darwin and Darwinism that “is often prettified to make it safe for doctrines that he himself was sadly compelled to leave behind.” The prettifying of evolution continues, even in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

Writing in the paper’s weekly “Houses of Worship” column, John Farrell argues that the 60th anniversary of the Roman Catholic Church’s encyclical Humani Generis should be cause for celebration, since that historic document, issued by Pope Pius XII, “confirmed, in broad terms, that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the scientific theory of evolution.”

Farrell argues that “Pius XII deserves credit for having the foresight to openly address the science when so many other denominations were either in deep denial or not interested in the challenge evolution poses for Christianity.” In other words, those “other denominations” had better get in line and affirm evolution as well.

Papal encyclicals are, by definition, official and authoritative statements of the Catholic magisterium. They often signal significant changes in Catholic theology and teaching. By any measure, Humani Generis was a statement of true historical significance. Pope Pius XII did indeed state that there is no intrinsic conflict between Catholic teaching and evolution. He did not lay claim upon a biblical authority for this verdict, but instead presented the document as a statement of papal authority. From 1950 forward, the Roman Catholic Church has been presented as being at peace with the theory of evolution, and this is often thrown in the face of evangelicals in public argument.

Of course, papal encyclicals hold no authority among evangelical Christians, who reject Catholic claims of papal and magisterial authority and see these as directly subversive of biblical authority. Nevertheless, the anniversary of Humani Generis does hold lessons evangelicals ought to note, and these surface, at least partially, in John Farrell’s column, “Catholics and the Evolving Cosmos.”

Farrell argues that Humani Generis “laid out the Catholic Church’s accommodation with evolution,” but then adds, “provided Christians believed the individual soul was not the product of purely material forces, but a direct creation by God.” Now, that is a huge qualification of the Catholic “accommodation with evolution.” Indeed, current mainstream models of evolution simply do not allow for the notion of a divinely-created soul. As a matter of fact, the reigning physicalist and materialist understandings that underpin evolutionary theory do not really leave any room for the existence of the soul at all.

But there is more to the conditions Pius XII put on his church’s acceptance of evolution. In the crucial words of paragraph 37, the Pope wrote this:

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

Thus, the Pope added the necessity of an historical Adam to his conditions for the acceptance of evolutionary theory. John Farrell does include this qualification in his article, but only after stating earlier that the only qualification was the divinely-created nature of the soul. Farrell presents an accurate account of the Pope’s concern: “Pius declared that it was not apparent how such a theory of a founding population of humans, and not a single couple, could be reconciled with original sin. That Catholic doctrine regards the Fall as an historical rebellion against God; a sin actually committed by an individual and which is passed on through the generations from him to all men and women.”

The Roman Catholic Church officially affirms that Adam was an historical figure who is indeed the genetic and physical father of all humanity, and it also affirms the doctrine of original sin. Liberal Catholic theologians may deny this teaching, but it stands as the official teaching of the Catholic Church. This is where John Farrell sees a problem, even as he celebrates the anniversary of Humani Generis. Genetic research, he asserts, “has settled this question against Pius.” Geneticists have proved, he reports, that “the level of genetic variation present in the species today rules out a founding population with less than several thousand individuals.”

Farrell explains that the Catholic Church accepted this reality, at least to some extent, with the 2004 statement Communion and Stewardship, but he also accepts that there is “unfinished business when it comes to evolution and Christian theology.” He then affirms the work of the late Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, who “re-interpreted Genesis in light of evolution, arguing that the story of Adam and Eve needed to be read metaphorically.” He also applauds John Haught at Georgetown University, who proposes “that the new cosmology of the expanding universe and the evolution of life require a more dynamic sense of God’s role in a world that is still not complete, a work in progress.”

Actually, John Haught argues that the entire structure of Christian theology should be recast in light of evolution. In his recent book Making Sense of Evolution, Haught asserts that “Darwin has altered our understanding of almost everything that concerns theology.”

Let no one doubt just how comprehensive Haught’s alteration of Christian theology will turn out to be. “Other disciplines such as geology, cosmology, anthropology, psychology, sociology, computer science, and medicine have already undergone a major retooling in the wake of Darwin’s findings,” he asserts. “Can theology realistically expect to escape a major metamorphosis?”

In Making Sense of Evolution, Haught provides ample evidence of what this “major metamorphosis” would mean. Every doctrine is brought to terms with evolutionary theory, including God. The revised deity of Haught’s evolutionary model is inseparable from his creation and stripped of sovereignty.

This kind of theological revisionism is not limited to Roman Catholic theologians, of course. John Weaver, a former Baptist minister and geologist who currently teaches at Regent’s Park College at the University of Oxford, also argues that we must surrender belief in an historical Adam and an historical Fall. Adam is a symbolic, rather than a genetic head of humanity, he asserts. As for the Fall, he argues: “Within the movement of evolutionary development, there must have been a moment when Homo sapiens came to full moral consciousness for the first time.” He suggests that a proposed “bottleneck” in the evolutionary past probably reduced human populations to “fairly low numbers for a time,” and that this made “the significant moment of moral choice even more critical for humankind as a whole.” The historicity of Genesis 3 is just dismissed.

The 60th anniversary of Humani Generis should serve as a reminder that evolutionary theory does indeed present Christian theology with an inevitable conflict. In the course of arguing the opposite, John Farrell actually makes this point with profound clarity. Humani Generis did not go far enough, he insists, even as he points to “unfinished business” between the Roman Catholic Church and evolution.

The Catholics will sort out their theological questions for themselves. For evangelicals, the direct lesson is that any accommodation to evolutionary theory comes with huge and inescapable theological costs. There is no way to affirm an historical Adam while holding to any mainstream model of evolution, and there is no way to affirm the Gospel without an historical Adam.

Furthermore, accommodations to evolutionary theory never end. There will always be “unfinished business” that will demand further theological concessions.

This is where the prettifying of Darwinism hits the wall. The real meaning of evolution’s central doctrines runs directly counter to the central doctrines of Christianity. Accommodation with evolution is a disastrous doctrinal strategy.

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

]]>Albert MohlerAccommodations to evolutionary theory never end. There will always be "unfinished business" that will demand further theological concessions.
The post ‘Prettifying’ Darwin — A Timely Look at a Losing Strategy appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.
Blog,Evolutionism,Homosexuality,Jesus & the Gospel,Roman Catholicism,Theology,Why I Signed The Manhattan Declarationhttp://www.albertmohler.com/2009/11/23/why-i-signed-the-manhattan-declaration/
Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:43:11 +0000http://www.albertmohler.com/?p=10542I am not inclined to sign manifestos or petitions. While believing strongly and passionately about many causes, I am not usually impressed with the effectiveness…

]]>I am not inclined to sign manifestos or petitions. While believing strongly and passionately about many causes, I am not usually impressed with the effectiveness of such statements and I am generally concerned about how such statements might be used or construed by others. I am not reluctant to speak for myself and from my own Christian convictions and consequent judgments. Furthermore, the constant exchange of opposing statements on this or that issue merely crowds the public square as opposing viewpoints compete for attention. So, for reasons perhaps both admirable and not so admirable, I prefer to stand on my own public statements.

But I signed The Manhattan Declaration. Indeed, I am among the original signatories to that statement, released to the public at the National Press Club last Friday. Why?

There are several reasons, but they all come down to this — I believe we are facing an inevitable and culture-determining decision on the three issues centrally identified in this statement. I also believe that we will experience a significant loss of Christian churches, denominations, and institutions in this process. There is every good reason to believe that the freedom to conduct Christian ministry according to Christian conviction is being subverted and denied before our eyes. I believe that the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage, and religious liberty are very much in danger at this very moment.

The signatories to The Manhattan Declaration include evangelical leaders, as well as leaders from the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches. The statement establishes the priority of the issues addressed:

While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.

Further:

Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense. In this declaration we affirm: 1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non­believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image.

The Culture of Death looms over our civilization, threatening every human being and the very right of our fellow citizens to experience life and to be respected at every stage of development. The statement calls for all Christians to “be united and untiring in our efforts to roll back the license to kill that began with the abandonment of the unborn to abortion.” But the issue of the sanctity of human life reaches far beyond abortion, to the threats of genocide, “ethnic cleansing,” euthanasia, assisted suicide, and the destruction of human embryos for medical experimentation.

On marriage, the statement includes a humble admission of our own Christian complicity in its subversion: “We confess with sadness that Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage and to model for the world the true meaning of marriage.” The declaration goes on to state:

The impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same­-sex and multiple partner relationships is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil and religious law and in the philosophical tradition that contributed to shaping the law. Yet it is critical that the impulse be resisted, for yielding to it would mean abandoning the possibility of restoring a sound understanding of marriage and, with it, the hope of rebuilding a healthy marriage culture. It would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about procreation and the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life.

The declaration includes a pledge “to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture.” Why? “The Bible teaches us that marriage is a central part of God’s creation covenant. Indeed, the union of husband and wife mirrors the bond between Christ and his church.”

The threat to religious liberty is a clear and present danger — not a remote danger on a far horizon. As the statement rightly reminds us:

We see this, for example, in the effort to weaken or eliminate conscience clauses, and therefore to compel pro­-life institutions (including religiously affiliated hospitals and clinics), and pro­-life physicians, surgeons, nurses, and other health care professionals, to refer for abortions and, in certain cases, even to perform or participate in abortions. We see it in the use of anti­ discrimination statutes to force religious institutions, businesses, and service providers of various sorts to comply with activities they judge to be deeply immoral or go out of business. After the judicial imposition of “same­-sex marriage” in Massachusetts, for example, Catholic Charities chose with great reluctance to end its century­ long work of helping to place orphaned children in good homes rather than comply with a legal mandate that it place children in same­-sex households in violation of Catholic moral teaching. In New Jersey, after the establishment of a quasi­marital “civil unions” scheme, a Methodist institution was stripped of its tax exempt status when it declined, as a matter of religious conscience, to permit a facility it owned and operated to be used for ceremonies blessing homosexual unions. In Canada and some European nations, Christian clergy have been prosecuted for preaching Biblical norms against the practice of homosexuality. New hate­ crime laws in America raise the specter of the same practice here.

Further:

In recent decades a growing body of case law has paralleled the decline in respect for religious values in the media, the academy and political leadership, resulting in restrictions on the free exercise of religion. We view this as an ominous development, not only because of its threat to the individual liberty guaranteed to every person, regardless of his or her faith, but because the trend also threatens the common welfare and the culture of freedom on which our system of republican government is founded.

Finally, The Manhattan Declaration ends with a statement of public conscience and conviction. These words are meant to send a very clear message — we cannot and will not abandon or compromise our Christian convictions:

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo­-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-­life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

I signed The Manhattan Declaration because I believe it is an historic statement of conviction and courage that is both timely and urgent. Over the course of the next few months and years, these issues will be reset in our culture and its laws. These are matters on which the Christian conscience cannot be silent. There are, of course, other issues that demand Christian attention as well. The focus on these three issues is forced by the circumstances of current threats as well as the awareness that the time of decision on these questions has come. Though Christians struggle to understand the extent to which our convictions should be incorporated in the law, we must now recognize that the very respect for these convictions — and the freedom to follow and obey these convictions in our own lives, families, and ministries is now at stake.

I signed The Manhattan Declaration because I lead a theological seminary and college, serve as a teaching pastor in a church, and am engaged in Christian leadership in the public square. Thus I see the threats to Christian liberties that now stare us in the face. The freedom not to perform a same-sex marriage is one thing, but what about the freedom to hire employees according to our Christian convictions? What about the right of Christian ministries to conduct their work according to Christian beliefs? What about the freedom to preach and teach against the grain of the nation’s laws (for example, after the legalization of same-sex marriage)? When do hate crimes laws slide into definitions of “hate speech?” The threats to our religious liberties are immediate and urgent.

I signed The Manhattan Declaration because it is a limited statement of Christian conviction on these three crucial issues, and not a wide-ranging theological document that subverts confessional integrity. I cannot and do not sign documents such as Evangelicals and Catholics Together that attempt to establish common ground on vast theological terrain. I could not sign a statement that purports, for example, to bridge the divide between Roman Catholics and evangelicals on the doctrine of justification. The Manhattan Declaration is not a manifesto for united action. It is a statement of urgent concern and common conscience on these three issues — the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage, and the defense of religious liberty.

My beliefs concerning the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches have not changed. The Roman Catholic Church teaches doctrines that I find both unbiblical and abhorrent — and these doctrines define nothing less than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But The Manhattan Declaration does not attempt to establish common ground on these doctrines. We remain who we are, and we concede no doctrinal ground.

But when Catholic Charities in Massachusetts chose to end its historic ministry of placing orphaned children in good homes because the State of Massachusetts required it to place children with same-sex couples, this is not just a Catholic issue. The orphanage could have easily been Baptist. When Belmont Abbey college in North Carolina is told by federal authorities that it must offer abortion services in its insurance plans for employees, this is no longer just a Catholic issue. The next institution to be under attack might well be Presbyterian. We are in this together, and we had better be thankful that, in this case, we are not alone.

Finally, I signed The Manhattan Declaration because I want to put my name on its final pledge — that we will not bend the knee to Caesar. We will not participate in any subversion of life. We will not be forced to accept any other relationship as equal in status or rights to heterosexual marriage. We will not refrain from proclaiming the truth — and we will order our churches and institutions and ministries by Christian conviction.

There will be Christian leaders, pastors, seminaries, colleges, universities, denominations, churches, and organizations that will abandon the faith on these issues. They will bend the knee to Caesar. Far too many already have. The signatories to The Manhattan Declaration pledge that we will not be among them.

I want my name on that list. I surrendered no conviction or confessional integrity to sign that statement. No one asked me to compromise in any manner. I was encouraged that we could stand together to make clear that to come for one of us on these issues is to come for all. At the end of the day, I did not want my name missing from that list when folks look to see just who was willing to be listed.

I am always glad to hear from readers and listeners. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

]]>Albert MohlerI am not inclined to sign manifestos or petitions. While believing strongly and passionately about many causes, I am not usually impressed with the effectiveness…
The post Why I Signed The Manhattan Declaration appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.
Abortion,Blog,Church & Ministry,Jesus & the Gospel,Roman Catholicism,Theology,Faith Without Works is Dead: An Evangelical Meditation on Mother Teresahttp://www.albertmohler.com/2009/07/16/faith-without-works-is-dead-an-evangelical-meditation-on-mother-teresa/
Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:35:13 +0000http://www.albertmohler.com/?p=5683“But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” With those words the Apostle James declared war on the theological fiction…

]]>“But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” With those words the Apostle James declared war on the theological fiction that intellectual assent to orthodox doctrine is the sum total of the Christian faith. And yet, the place and priority of good works in the Christian life remains a vexing issue for believers- and a fierce issue of debate among the theologians.

The death of Mother Teresa of Calcutta brings this issue unavoidably to light. The remarkable nun had achieved world-wide recognition for her work among those she identified as “the poorest of the poor,” and that recognition was richly deserved.

Taking over a former temple to Kali-the Hindu goddess of death and destruction-Mother Teresa and her Sisters of Charity took in the sick, the dying, and the destitute. Her mission became known as a refuge for those who had no refuge. The dying received care in the name of Jesus Christ, and their bodies were washed and tended. Asked if she feared death, Mother Teresa replied, “No, I see it all the time.”

Visitors to her mission were quickly handed a bowl of food to feed to an abandoned infant, or a basin for washing a dying beggar. She would be interviewed while constantly at work, and her face gave ample evidence of her hours of loving labor.

An Albanian by birth, Mother Teresa was already a nun when in 1946 she received “a call within a call” and heard God calling her to found a new religious order dedicated to tending the abandoned of Calcutta. Pressed by the little nun (she was less than five feet tall), the Vatican relented and established her order. Taking the motto, “Let every action of mine be something beautiful for God,” Mother Teresa and twelve sisters started the order and its work.

Fame came through a television documentary by Malcolm Muggeridge, the British journalist. Shortly thereafter, Mother Teresa would be famous, and Malcolm Muggeridge, forever touched by her example, would convert to Catholicism. In a book based upon his documentary of the same title, Something Beautiful for God, Muggeridge wrote that Mother Teresa could “hear in the cry of every abandoned child the cry of the Bethlehem child; recognize in every leper’s stumps the hands which once touched sightless eyes and made them see.”

Later years would bring awards including the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize, and honorary degrees from universities including Harvard-not previously known for honoring nuns. (Speaking to Harvard graduates on the eve of their commencement, she instructed them on the virtue of sexual chastity. Her instructions were bold, and almost certainly too late.) Her sense of calling was as concentrated as a laser beam, and she was equally capable of creating heat or light. She declined the customary Nobel award banquet and asked that the money be sent to her mission. When Pope Paul VI gave her a limousine, she sold it with dispatch and started a new charity project.

Her courageous stand against the enemies of life won her hatred as well as notoriety. Living through the central decades of what historian John Lukacs calls “the bloody twentieth century,” Mother Teresa contended for the sanctity of life on the streets, and in the womb.

Standing to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, she aimed her words at the enemies of the unborn: “To me the nations with legalized abortion are the poorest nations. The greatest destroyer of peace today is the crime against the unborn child.” This was, we can be certain, not what the Swedish Academy had in mind.

Her boldest stand was taken in Washington, D.C., where in 1994 Mother Teresa addressed the National Prayer Breakfast. The sari-clad nun declared that abortion is “a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself.” The mother and the father are both complicit in this murderous act. “By abortion, the mother does not learn to live, but kills even her own child to solve her problems, And, by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion.”

Turning political correctness on its head, she refused to retreat into speaking of those involved in abortion as merely women and men-she called them mothers and fathers, exhibiting a moral honesty and courage rarely seen in this age of moral timidity. But her most courageous words were still to come. Standing before over 4,000 of Washington’s most powerful officials-including President and Mrs. Clinton-she softly but sternly pled: “Please don’t kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child and be loved by the child.”

Such moral courage is rare in Washington, or in any other modern city. Mother Teresa was not making a hypothetical offer-her children’s home in Calcutta claims to have saved over 3,000 children from abortion.

Mother Teresa seemed unable to understand how Americans could be so morally debased. In an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court, she attacked the infamous Roe v. Wade decision which legalized abortion. “It was a sad infidelity to America’s highest ideals when this Court said that it did not matter, or could not be determined, when the inalienable right to life began for a child in its mother’s womb.” In yet another context, she simply asked, “If a mother can kill her own child, then what is left of the West to be destroyed?”

Her moral clarity earned her enemies. In 1994 she was attacked for her pro-life convictions in a British television production wickedly entitled Hell’s Angel. Her order accepted financial support from the rich, the famous, and the scandalous. When she was criticized for accepting money from unsavory business and political leaders, she replied that she had no right to refuse money which could go to the poor.

The political left rejected her hands-on ministry as quaint, if not dangerous, and attacked her for not addressing “the root causes of poverty” in capitalism, multinational corporations, and other economic patterns. Mother Teresa kept washing bodies and saving babies.

She was famous for her good works. This is a challenge to evangelical understanding. Did she trust in her good works for her salvation? Roman Catholic doctrine holds, not only that faith without works is dead, but that our good works cooperate with grace. Evangelicals rightly reject this as the very works righteousness the Apostle Paul so eloquently-and conclusively-rejected. Salvation is entirely by grace through faith, and completely apart from works.

And yet, good works subsequent to salvation are evidence of genuine faith. But even these works are enabled by the grace of God working through those He has regenerated. This is completely missed by the media, and by the pundits of popular culture. One reporter on National Public Radio said that Mother Teresa was “the Word made flesh.”

Our Lord commanded that we let our light shine before others “that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” For the Christian, the purpose of works is not to bring attention to ourselves as good, but to point to God, who alone is good.

Did Mother Teresa know this? Was her faith in Christ, and in Christ alone? Representatives of at least six non-Christian religions participated in Mother Teresa’s state funeral in India. Was she clear that Jesus Christ is the only Savior, and that salvation is found in His name, and in His name alone?

The answers to these questions are, for now, known only to God. The issue before evangelicals is
this: Do we have what it takes to produce a Mother Teresa? Do we have the courage, the concern, and the love for “the least of these” required for such a ministry? Have we grown spiritually blind and deaf to the “untouchables” around us?

Where are the evangelical orders of committed evangelist/caregivers, who will take up a ministry to those like the destitute and dying of Calcutta? Our credibility before the watching world is at stake, and in question.

Those who know that salvation is purely by grace through faith, and that we have nothing to claim but the shed blood of Jesus Christ also know that, on the basis of that same biblical revelation, we are told to minister in Christ’s name. The danger is always that we will either trust in our works for our salvation, or deny the importance of works after our salvation.

We should remember the instruction of Augustine, the great theologian of the early church, who reminds us that good works “are the consequences rather than the precedents of grace. Thus, no man is to suppose that he has received grace because he has done good works but rather that he would not have been able to do those good works if he had not, through faith, received grace.”

As we reflect upon the death of Mother Teresa, may we glorify God for her good works and take courage from her example as a defender of the unborn and the despised. May we preach the gospel of grace, and may the evidence of that grace be so abundant that God is glorified. As this murderous and immoral century comes to a close, may evangelical Christians bear witness to both the grace and the goodness of God, and may God do something beautiful through us.

]]>Albert Mohler“But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” With those words the Apostle James declared war on the theological fiction…
The post Faith Without Works is Dead: An Evangelical Meditation on Mother Teresa appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.
Fidelitas,Jesus & the Gospel,Roman Catholicism,They’re Back . . . The Pope and Indulgenceshttp://www.albertmohler.com/2009/07/16/theyre-back-the-pope-and-indulgences/
Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:27:50 +0000http://www.albertmohler.com/?p=5661Looking to Christianity’s third millennium, Pope John Paul II has declared “The Great Jubilee of the Year 2000″—and indulgences from punishment for sin are a…

]]>Looking to Christianity’s third millennium, Pope John Paul II has declared “The Great Jubilee of the Year 2000″—and indulgences from punishment for sin are a centerpiece of the jubilee celebration. The practice which brought Luther to his break with Rome is once again front and center in Catholic practice as the new millennium approaches.

In “Incarnationis Mysterium,” his bull declaring the jubilee year, the Pope has reopened one of the most difficult issues separating evangelicals and Roman Catholics, spawning a “Y2K” crisis of immense theological significance.

Pope Clement VI was the first to declare that the Roman church possessed a “Treasury of Merit” stored up by the merits of the saints and available at the disposal of the Church. Clement’s 1343 papal bull declaring a jubilee year opened the door for the offer of indulgences, which became a widespread practice within just a few years. Indeed, the medieval church largely financed its expanding operations through the sale of indulgences and masses for the dead. In the 16th century, Pope Julius II sought to finance the building of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome through the sale of indulgences—a practice which soon burned indignation into the heart of a young Augustinian monk named Martin Luther.

It was the appearance of Johannes Tetzel, a Dominican monk, selling indulgences for the building of St. Peter’s that so offended Martin Luther. The more Luther heard of Tetzel’s preaching, the more he saw the evil of the practice. The famous “Ninety-Five Theses” Luther nailed to the Wittenberg church door opened with an attack on the theological heart of the indulgences issue. His words still thunder through the centuries: “Those who believe that they can be certain of their salvation because they have indulgence letters will be eternally damned, together with their teachers” [Thesis 32]. “Any truly repentant Christian has a rich right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without indulgence letters” [Thesis 36].

Later, Luther was to decry the “shameful outrage and idolatry of indulgences,” which he had come to see as a slander to the atoning work of Christ and a denial of justification by faith. The Reformation revealed the great divide between the Reformers and the Catholic church on issues as central as grace, law, justification, faith, and authority in the church, but it was the practice of granting indulgences which sparked the explosion.

John Paul II’s recent declaration did not come as a shot out of the blue. In fact, indulgences were affirmed by the Council of Trent, called in the 16th century to answer the Reformation. As recently as 1967 Pope Paul VI released an encyclical defining an indulgence as “the remission in the sight of God of the temporal punishment due to sins which have already been blotted out as far as guilt is concerned; the Christian believer who is properly disposed gains it on certain conditions with the help if the Church which, as the minister of redemption, authoritatively dispenses and applies the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints.” He also extended this to the dead, whose punishment in purgatory can be relieved through the intercession of the living.

Extending the matter even further, in 1985 John Paul II allowed indulgences to be granted to those watching a service by television, who otherwise met the requirements of those physically present. In his jubilee bull, the Pope listed a wide range of acts which could earn an indulgence, ranging from a sacred pilgrimage to Rome, the Holy Land, or to the cathedral or other stipulated church in their area, or by acts of service to others, by even one day of abstaining from “unnecessary consumption” (including alcohol or tobacco), or by donations to the poor.

Evangelicals shocked by the Pope’s new statement should be reminded that the Roman Catholic church has never repudiated indulgences, though it did seek to reform the practice, and to clarify that the indulgence removes punishment but not guilt. As in the 16th century, the practice of granting indulgences clarifies the continuing gulf between evangelical and Catholic conviction on central doctrines.

While admiring the Pope’s brave fight in defense of human life and human rights, his courageous confrontation with modernity, and his stalwart insistence on the objective reality of truth, evangelicals must insist that the church has no power to forgive sin, that the work of Christ is complete, and that the entire complex of purgatory, indulgences, penance, and the treasury of merit is utterly without biblical foundation.

There is but one “only true indulgence,” insisted Luther, and that is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Or, as the Apostle Paul wrote the church in Rome: “Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him” [Romans 5:9].

]]>Albert MohlerLooking to Christianity’s third millennium, Pope John Paul II has declared “The Great Jubilee of the Year 2000″—and indulgences from punishment for sin are a…
The post They’re Back . . . The Pope and Indulgences appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.
Church history,Fidelitas,Jesus & the Gospel,Roman Catholicism,Blessed Art Thou Among Women: The New Debate Over Maryhttp://www.albertmohler.com/2009/07/16/blessed-art-thou-among-women-the-new-debate-over-mary/
Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:19:20 +0000http://www.albertmohler.com/?p=5641The issue of Mary remains one of the hottest debates on the Protestant/Roman Catholic divide, and new proposals for Marian doctrines are likely to ignite…

]]>The issue of Mary remains one of the hottest debates on the Protestant/Roman Catholic divide, and new proposals for Marian doctrines are likely to ignite a theological conflagration. At stake is not only the biblical understanding of Mary, but the integrity of the work of Christ.

The current debate came to light in the Vatican newspaper L’Observatore Romano which reported in early summer that the Pope had asked a commission of Catholic theologians to consider the advisability of declaring Mary “Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of All Graces and Advocate for the People of God.”

According to the paper, the 23 theologians—all experts on Mariology—unanimously recommended that the Pope drop the proposal. And yet, according to a constant stream of reports in the media, this Pope is not easily deterred. John Paul II seems intent upon raising Marian devotion to new heights under his pontificate, and his consistency in this regard is reflected in nearly every papal statement.

Evangelicals naturally wince when Catholics exhibit Marian devotion. The entire structure of Marian theology is so foreign to the Bible that evangelicals have difficulty understanding how such an unbiblical notion could have arisen, much less gained near supremacy in Roman Catholic popular devotion. How can the veneration of Mary not lead to a decrease of devotion to Christ?

That same question troubled a young Polish man named Karol Wojtyla, who would later be Pope John Paul II. As a young factory worker, Wojtyla was attracted to Marian devotion, but first he had to get over his concern “that I should distance myself a bit from the Marian devotion of my childhood, in order to focus more on Christ.” He did overcome this concern, and entered a new “mature form of devotion to the Mother of God.”

In fact, John Paul II credited Mary (in the form of Our Lady of Fatima) with saving his life during the 1981 assassination attempt. His papal motto, also found on his episcopal coat-of-arms, is addressed to Mary as Totus Tuus—”totally yours.”

Proponents of the new Marian dogmas have organized a massive lobbying effort with the Vatican. According to some reports, the Pope has received almost 4.5 million signatures on petitions, and an average of more than 100,000 letters per month. Much of the energy (and money) behind this movement is from the United States, where a coalition of Marian devotees is pushing for a papal declaration.

Mother Angelica—one of religious television’s most improbable characters—couches her exhortation in a warning: “If the Holy Father would define this dogma, it would save the world from great catastrophes and loosen God’s mercy even more upon this world.” Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici (“The Voice of the People for Mary Mediatrix”), a Catholic lay movement based in Steubenville, Ohio, is spearheading much of the effort. Its founder, Dr. Mark Miravalle of Franciscan University, states that he has “great moral certainty” the new doctrines will be declared by John Paul II to be infallibly revealed dogmas of the Roman Catholic church before the year 2000.

Currently, the church recognizes four Marian dogmas. The most important of these, Mary’s divine maternity, was defined by the Council of Ephesus in 431, granting that Mary is rightly called “God-bearer” because she was the mother of Christ. Later dogmas declared Mary’s perpetual virginity (649), Immaculate Conception (1854), and Bodily Assumption (1950).

Tragically, each new Marian doctrine has moved Roman Catholic theology and devotion increasingly away from the Holy Scriptures and toward human innovation. In reality, the declaration of Mary as “God-bearer” brought ill effects upon the Catholic church. The original issue in that fifth-century debate was not Mary at all, but Christ. The council acknowledged Mary was the “God-bearer” in order to affirm the deity of Christ without question.

Quickly, however, the doctrine came to magnify Mary. In popular Catholic devotion—and in the writings and sermons of popes—Mary is now called the Queen of Heaven, the Mother of all Graces, and an abundance of other unbiblical titles. By the time of the Reformation, the veneration of Mary was established Catholic piety and theology. John Calvin warned of “those titles full of anathema, by which, while they would honor the Virgin, they most grievously insult her.” And to those many others have been added.

In the medieval church, Mary was already understood in a mediatorial role, and as intercessor to her Son. As Calvin retorted, praying to Mary “is assuredly altogether alien from the Word of God.” As the Bible clearly reveals, there is but one Mediator, Jesus Christ, and his mediatorial work cannot be supplemented by Mary.

While careful Catholic theologians insist their Marian doctrines do not diminish or impugn the saving work of Christ, this is the inevitable result. And, though Catholics claim their veneration of Mary does not distract from the worship of the Trinity, Marian devotion has virtually eclipsed the worship of God in many quarters.

Marian devotion is profoundly lacking in biblical support. Scripture reveals Mary to be a worthy model of humble submission to the will of God, as the virgin who was the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ. But Scripture does not reveal any suggestion that Mary is to be venerated, that she should be honored with unbiblical titles, that she was perpetually a virgin, that she was conceived without sin, that she was assumed into heaven before death, that she participated in any way in the atonement, or that she serves in any mediatorial role. To the contrary, the Bible makes clear the only true worship is the worship of the one true God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This God is a jealous God who will not allow the worship of any creature—even the earthly mother of Jesus the Christ.

The debates over Mary emerged anew in the Reformation and remain a major divide between evangelicals and Roman Catholics. Unfortunately, few Protestant theologians have been willing to address the debates head-on. Despite his own theological deficiencies, Karl Barth did get to the bottom of this issue. Mariology, he said, “is an excrescence”—”a diseased construct of theological thought.” Further, “In the doctrine and worship of Mary there is disclosed the one heresy of the Roman Catholic Church which explains all the rest.” What should be our response? Barth suggested one simple word—No.

Clearly, some Catholics are concerned about the ecumenical impact of the proposed new doctrines. They should well be warned. Nothing will more clearly demonstrate the profoundly unbiblical temptations of Roman Catholic theology than the adoption of these new Marian doctrines. Mary is not in any sense a co-redeemer, co-mediator, or advocate. She is not a dispenser of grace. Like all Christians, she is a sinner saved by the grace of God through the redeeming work of our Lord Jesus Christ.

In reality, new papal declarations may not mean much anyway, because the proposed Marian doctrines are already firmly ensconced in popular Catholic piety. This is an infusion of paganism all evangelicals must resist.

We have no right to grant to Mary—or to any saint, or to anyone else—what the Bible does not explicitly ascribe. In this we should all take Mary’s advice given as Jesus performed his first miracle: “Whatever He says to you, do it.” Nothing more—and nothing less.

]]>Albert MohlerThe issue of Mary remains one of the hottest debates on the Protestant/Roman Catholic divide, and new proposals for Marian doctrines are likely to ignite…
The post Blessed Art Thou Among Women: The New Debate Over Mary appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.
Church history,Fidelitas,Roman Catholicism,Theology,